Mikel Maron wrote: > Your change earlier this month was pretty substantial. [...] > Personally, I'm not partial to either side of the argument, but willing to > work with whatever the consensus is. > I want to give a hint on a change that was made some times ago and is still today considered not OK by myself. As Mikel I am willing to work with a lot of definitions. But it is not OK IMO to reverse definitions that had been existing and used for years => afterwards our data are likeley to be wrong.
What happened? The standard definition since I joined the project years ago was that an attribute has to be added to a object (node/way/area). This means for "oneway" that "oneway = no" was the default for any object. Suddenly some people decided that a "highway=motorway_link" would automatically include a "oneway=yes" even w/o having the attribute attached to the object (also valid to other "XXX_link"). This is a real problem as after this change a lot of motorway exits are simpley tagged wrong! My conclusion is that we have to be very (!) careful when we change definitions, there has to be a compatibility between the old definition and the new one. If this is not considered, our complete planet data has to be reworked because we change the data to wrong by a "simple change of the definitions". I am not willing to check and correct the whole planet... Best rgerads, Michael. PS: my sollution at that time was to explicitley add a "oneway=yes/no" to every new XXXXX_link road part I create or modify but I am not willing to check all the XXXX_links I once created, that should be a work for those who decided to change the definition... PPS: the change in the definitions was made silent: no announcement on the MLs and forum or any good visible place so it was not noticed by a lot of persons for long time. That's another issue I think about being a very bad behavious... _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
